SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by Guidas on Mar 4, 2023 16:13:39 GMT -5
Even beyond the games being shorter in total, the pitch clock has dramatically improved the rhythm of play. No more long pauses where a pitcher steps out and then a hitter steps out or a bunch of pickoff attempts. Imagine it'll be even more stark once the games start mattering. If they could limit all mound visits (i.e. catchers included) to one per pitcher or the pitcher has to be removed they'd save another 2-5 minutes a game. Or 10 minutes in every NYY game.
|
|
|
Post by backwardsk on Mar 9, 2023 23:22:23 GMT -5
The pitch clock is actually really great for the actual game of baseball. Helping fix the game.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Mar 9, 2023 23:24:30 GMT -5
The pitch clock is actually really great for the actual game of baseball. Helping fix the game. College baseball folks are starting to come around to it more and more each week (the guys on the D1 Baseball pod were just talking about how they like it now) - I think MLB fans will acclimate the same way. Weird at first, sometimes annoying, but generally for the greater good.
|
|
|
Post by crossedsabres8 on Mar 10, 2023 10:00:38 GMT -5
The pitch clock is actually really great for the actual game of baseball. Helping fix the game. Wouldn't be surprised to see SB attempts go up more in the regular season, there is no need to risk injury in games that don't matter.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Mar 14, 2023 18:41:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Mar 14, 2023 18:43:33 GMT -5
I will say, the one rule change that really bothers me is the constant tweaking to the baseballs. I can understand wanting to reach a certain equilibrium but the constant (and potentially under the table) tweaking just makes trying to decipher results so annoying.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 20, 2023 6:00:54 GMT -5
Interesting...
/photo/1
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Apr 3, 2023 12:26:35 GMT -5
My early take on the pace-of-play rule changes is that the game is so obviously better and more exciting to watch now that it seems completely insane that the league waited this long to make these changes.
The average time of game this season, by the way, is basically the same as it was in 1985. It's still longer than it was in the 1970s, when it ranged between 2:23 and 2:30. "Traditionalists" ought to be rejoicing.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Apr 3, 2023 12:52:02 GMT -5
My early take on the pace-of-play rule changes is that the game is so obviously better and more exciting to watch now that it seems completely insane that the league waited this long to make these changes.
The average time of game this season, by the way, is basically the same as it was in 1985. It's still longer than it was in the 1970s, when it ranged between 2:23 and 2:30. "Traditionalists" ought to be rejoicing. I really think every single rule change is a clear win, but pace of play obviously is by far the biggest one. I would say even taking a step back from baseball when was the last time any major sport implemented an intentional change with such a dramatic and positive effect? ADD: It's not just game time back to 1980s levels, but stolen bases are too at 1.4/game which is nearly double the rate through the first 50 games last year (per Fangraphs).
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Apr 3, 2023 13:08:10 GMT -5
My early take on the pace-of-play rule changes is that the game is so obviously better and more exciting to watch now that it seems completely insane that the league waited this long to make these changes.
The average time of game this season, by the way, is basically the same as it was in 1985. It's still longer than it was in the 1970s, when it ranged between 2:23 and 2:30. "Traditionalists" ought to be rejoicing. I really think every single rule change is a clear win, but pace of play obviously is by far the biggest one. I would say even taking a step back from baseball when was the last time any major sport implemented an intentional change with such a dramatic and positive effect? ADD: It's not just game time back to 1980s levels, but stolen bases are too at 1.4/game which is nearly double the rate through the first 50 games last year (per Fangraphs). I am still in wait-and-see mode on the stolen bases thing. Stolen bases are back to 1980s level, but that's closer to a historical high-water mark than a historical norm. Meanwhile, caught stealings are less than *half* of what they were back then. Base stealers have been successful 83% of the time vs. 75% last year. I wonder if that puts us past a tipping point where at least a certain significant number of players all turn into Rickey Henderson. I like speed being a bigger part of the game, but I don't really want it to be determinative; it could become too much of a good thing.
But we'll see how teams adjust and whatnot.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,421
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Apr 3, 2023 13:23:21 GMT -5
I really think every single rule change is a clear win, but pace of play obviously is by far the biggest one. I would say even taking a step back from baseball when was the last time any major sport implemented an intentional change with such a dramatic and positive effect? ADD: It's not just game time back to 1980s levels, but stolen bases are too at 1.4/game which is nearly double the rate through the first 50 games last year (per Fangraphs). I am still in wait-and-see mode on the stolen bases thing. Stolen bases are back to 1980s level, but that's closer to a historical high-water mark than a historical norm. Meanwhile, caught stealings are less than *half* of what they were back then. Base stealers have been successful 83% of the time vs. 75% last year. I wonder if that puts us past a tipping point where at least a certain significant number of players all turn into Rickey Henderson. I like speed being a bigger part of the game, but I don't really want it to be determinative; it could become too much of a good thing.
But we'll see how teams adjust and whatnot.
I agree with this. I love stealing, but between the limited pick offs AND the bigger bases, I worry it’s gone too far. The Sox looked helpless, and that won’t be fun if it is the norm.
|
|
shagworthy
Veteran
My neckbeard game is on point.
Posts: 1,535
|
Post by shagworthy on Apr 3, 2023 13:32:03 GMT -5
I am still in wait-and-see mode on the stolen bases thing. Stolen bases are back to 1980s level, but that's closer to a historical high-water mark than a historical norm. Meanwhile, caught stealings are less than *half* of what they were back then. Base stealers have been successful 83% of the time vs. 75% last year. I wonder if that puts us past a tipping point where at least a certain significant number of players all turn into Rickey Henderson. I like speed being a bigger part of the game, but I don't really want it to be determinative; it could become too much of a good thing.
But we'll see how teams adjust and whatnot.
I agree with this. I love stealing, but between the limited pick offs AND the bigger bases, I worry it’s gone too far. The Sox looked helpless, and that won’t be fun if it is the norm. 100% Agree, I think the one mistake was limiting pick off attempts to such a low number, it puts the pitcher at such a competitive disadvantage on top of having to manage the clock. I like the picked up pace, and I will be the first to admit I hated the idea of a pitch clock and some of the other radical changes, but now seeing it in action I've been pleasantly surprised and it has made me pay closer attention so I don't miss the action.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Apr 3, 2023 14:15:55 GMT -5
I am still in wait-and-see mode on the stolen bases thing. Stolen bases are back to 1980s level, but that's closer to a historical high-water mark than a historical norm. Meanwhile, caught stealings are less than *half* of what they were back then. Base stealers have been successful 83% of the time vs. 75% last year. I wonder if that puts us past a tipping point where at least a certain significant number of players all turn into Rickey Henderson. I like speed being a bigger part of the game, but I don't really want it to be determinative; it could become too much of a good thing.
But we'll see how teams adjust and whatnot.
I agree with this. I love stealing, but between the limited pick offs AND the bigger bases, I worry it’s gone too far. The Sox looked helpless, and that won’t be fun if it is the norm. Eh they looked helpless against the steal and yet won 2/3 games, so I think to that point it isn't determinative. I'll admit I'm an especially big fan of stolen bases, and I think it's a good thing when the sport rewards athleticism. I also think teams will adjust somewhat as the season goes on.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,421
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Apr 3, 2023 14:58:49 GMT -5
I agree with this. I love stealing, but between the limited pick offs AND the bigger bases, I worry it’s gone too far. The Sox looked helpless, and that won’t be fun if it is the norm. Eh they looked helpless against the steal and yet won 2/3 games, so I think to that point it isn't determinative. I'll admit I'm an especially big fan of stolen bases, and I think it's a good thing when the sport rewards athleticism. I also think teams will adjust somewhat as the season goes on. I mean, they won because they scored 9+ runs every game. If you think that will be their season average, sure, the steals are no concern. But I’d say at 2-1, and really *should* be 1-2, they can look to shore up weaknesses.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Apr 3, 2023 15:11:33 GMT -5
Eh they looked helpless against the steal and yet won 2/3 games, so I think to that point it isn't determinative. I'll admit I'm an especially big fan of stolen bases, and I think it's a good thing when the sport rewards athleticism. I also think teams will adjust somewhat as the season goes on. I mean, they won because they scored 9+ runs every game. If you think that will be their season average, sure, the steals are no concern. But I’d say at 2-1, and really *should* be 1-2, they can look to shore up weaknesses. My point is for the topic here - are steals going to be determinative of success? I would argue the first series of the year is evidence that no they will not be. The Red Sox scored a bunch of runs without many steals, and the Orioles scored a bunch not as much because of their steals but because the Red Sox pitchers had a WHIP of nearly 2.0. Of course the steals help, and the Red Sox should try to figure out how to give up less.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,421
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Apr 3, 2023 15:31:48 GMT -5
I mean, they won because they scored 9+ runs every game. If you think that will be their season average, sure, the steals are no concern. But I’d say at 2-1, and really *should* be 1-2, they can look to shore up weaknesses. My point is for the topic here - are steals going to be determinative of success? I would argue the first series of the year is evidence that no they will not be. The Red Sox scored a bunch of runs without many steals, and the Orioles scored a bunch not as much because of their steals but because the Red Sox pitchers had a WHIP of nearly 2.0. Of course the steals help, and the Red Sox should try to figure out how to give up less. Would you feel the same if the O’s hadn’t butchered a popup in game 2? Then those steals might feel a bit more important.
|
|
|
Post by seamus on Apr 3, 2023 16:23:54 GMT -5
My point is for the topic here - are steals going to be determinative of success? I would argue the first series of the year is evidence that no they will not be. The Red Sox scored a bunch of runs without many steals, and the Orioles scored a bunch not as much because of their steals but because the Red Sox pitchers had a WHIP of nearly 2.0. Of course the steals help, and the Red Sox should try to figure out how to give up less. Would you feel the same if the O’s hadn’t butchered a popup in game 2? Then those steals might feel a bit more important. Eh, maybe. I don't think they were the difference maker in the game they did lose - more a curiosity than anything. As that Fangraphs article pointed out, it was kind of a perfect storm with a ton of base runners who are predisposed to steal repeatedly being put in steal-friendly situations with slow-to-the-plate pitchers on the hill. The fact that the O's didn't steal on Sunday really suggests that 5 steals a game isn't going to be the norm, and 1 or 2 isn't likely to be backbreaking.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Apr 3, 2023 16:38:51 GMT -5
My point is for the topic here - are steals going to be determinative of success? I would argue the first series of the year is evidence that no they will not be. The Red Sox scored a bunch of runs without many steals, and the Orioles scored a bunch not as much because of their steals but because the Red Sox pitchers had a WHIP of nearly 2.0. Of course the steals help, and the Red Sox should try to figure out how to give up less. Would you feel the same if the O’s hadn’t butchered a popup in game 2? Then those steals might feel a bit more important. Yes it wouldn't change my opinion that the steals didn't determine the outcome of the series. Had they caught it I could just point to the fact the Red Sox were a dropped / well placed fly ball away from winning the series. They also might have won game one if Winckowski pitched two innings instead of Ort. The stolen bases helped the Orioles perform better I'm not denying that but they clearly were not the determining factor. Put another way if I had to guess the total WPA added from Orioles steals would still be less than any single major hit in a game.
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Apr 12, 2023 16:31:05 GMT -5
I am not sure if this is the correct thread for this because I am not immediately blaming the rule changes. However, I can't remember this happening so frequently. Seems like 4 or 5 times now since spring training.... www.nbcsportsedge.com/baseball/mlb/player/21250/kyle-farmerJustin Turner Josh Smith Austin Nola Kyle Farmer
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Apr 18, 2023 15:48:28 GMT -5
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,388
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Apr 18, 2023 15:52:21 GMT -5
I get that it's just rules to test out in the Atlantic League but if they ever institute a pinch-runner rule I'd find it pretty disgusting. It would turn baseball into my local beer league softball league where the old guys just hit a single and we get the youngest guy on the team to immediately go pinch run for them. I can find absolutely no reason that I would endorse that rule.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 18, 2023 15:57:55 GMT -5
How about 1 catcher mound visit per pitcher - or counting any catcher mound visits to the 4 allowed for the game? That seems like it would save a ton of time.
|
|
|
Post by seamus on Apr 18, 2023 16:08:39 GMT -5
I get that it's just rules to test out in the Atlantic League but if they ever institute a pinch-runner rule I'd find it pretty disgusting. It would turn baseball into my local beer league softball league where the old guys just hit a single and we get the youngest guy on the team to immediately go pinch run for them. I can find absolutely no reason that I would endorse that rule. As long as it's once a game rather than every time a particular player reaches base, I could be persuaded that it adds another strategic layer. The double-hook rule would kill the opener, but I do wonder how much difference it would make setting a 5-inning threshold. That's generally what teams are asking starters to do anyway. If you want to incentivize deeper starts, I think you'd have to set it at 6 innings instead, but if a guy can't make it that far and just gets shellacked, taking a good hitter out of the trailing team's lineup seems like it would make games less competitive. I like the idea of trying to make starting pitching more important, but I don't know if this is quite right. Maybe the starting DH could be tied to the starting pitcher, with a "relief" DH tied to all subsequent relievers?
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,388
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Apr 18, 2023 16:59:36 GMT -5
I get that it's just rules to test out in the Atlantic League but if they ever institute a pinch-runner rule I'd find it pretty disgusting. It would turn baseball into my local beer league softball league where the old guys just hit a single and we get the youngest guy on the team to immediately go pinch run for them. I can find absolutely no reason that I would endorse that rule. As long as it's once a game rather than every time a particular player reaches base, I could be persuaded that it adds another strategic layer. The double-hook rule would kill the opener, but I do wonder how much difference it would make setting a 5-inning threshold. That's generally what teams are asking starters to do anyway. If you want to incentivize deeper starts, I think you'd have to set it at 6 innings instead, but if a guy can't make it that far and just gets shellacked, taking a good hitter out of the trailing team's lineup seems like it would make games less competitive. I like the idea of trying to make starting pitching more important, but I don't know if this is quite right. Maybe the starting DH could be tied to the starting pitcher, with a "relief" DH tied to all subsequent relievers? I was adding some hyperbole and id have to assume it'd be a once a game type of deal. I still hate the idea of the idea of the rule even if it's just for once a game.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,696
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Apr 18, 2023 17:13:06 GMT -5
Maybe I missed it, but what happens for the double hook rule if a pitcher gets injured prior to the 5th game? They lose the DH?
I dont want any of the new rules they're testing. I'm already getting concerned that stealing bases might be too easy as success rates are around 82% league wide.
|
|
|